Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/761/2011

KANNIAMMAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

KALPANA MEDICAL CENTRE PVT. LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

S. MAHENDRAN

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.  

 

                             BEFORE:  Thiru.J.JAYARAM,                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

                                                   Tmt.P.BAKIAVATHY,                      MEMBER.

 

F.A.No.761/2011

     

 (Against the order in C.C.No.29/2010, dated.20.04.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore.)   

THE  10^th   DAY OF DECEMBER 2015.

                                                                                             

1. Kannniyammal, (Deceased)                                            

2. S.Kanagamani,                                        

3. P. Appadurai,

4. P.Aruchami,

    All are residing at No.5/20, Peon Colony,

    2^nd Street, Koundampalayam,

    Coimbatore – 641 030.

5. S. Revathi,

    No.11/1-A Srinagar,

    Saravanampatti,                                                              Appellants/Complainants

    Coimbatore – 641 035.                                               (Lr’s of Kanniyammal, Deceased)                                 

                                    

                                -Vs-

 

Kalpana Medical Centre Private Limited,

Mettupalayam Road,

Koundampalayam,

Coimbatore – 641 030.                                                 Respondent/Opposite Party

 

Counsel for Appellants/Complainants      :  M/s.S. Mahendran, Advocate.

  Counsel for Respondent/Opposite Party  :  M/s Munusamy, Advocate.

 

This appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 15.10.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:  

ORDER

Thiru. J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.                This appeal is filed by the complainants against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.No.29/2010 dated 20.04.2011 dismissing the complaint.     

2.                The case of the complainant is that the complainant was aged about 80 years and she fell down and sustained injuries in right hip bone and she was taken to the opposite hospital for treatment. She was admitted in the opposite party hospital and a surgery was done by fixing plate and screws and one of the screws was not properly fixed as a result of which the complainant suffered severe pain in the right hip and so she was admitted again in the opposite party hospital and finding no improvement, the complainant was treated in Rex Hospital where the plate and screw were removed. Apart from suffering from pain, the complainant incurred in heavy medical expenses and this happened due to the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint.

3.                According to the opposite party the complainant suffered from comminuted, inter trochanteric fracture in the right femur (Basal) for which surgery was performed and the operation was successful. But, she again complained of severe pain and approached the opposite party hospital again and the opposite party suggested another surgery but the complainant refused to undergo further surgery. The complainant had not followed the post-operative procedures properly which caused one screw penetrating into the joint. Since the complainant is an aged person it would normally take 3 to 4 months for the union of bones fractured. The opposite party  advised the complainant no weight bearing and squatting, but the complainant has not followed the medical advice as a result of which the screw and plate had been dislodged and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.                The District Forum has considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant have preferred this appeal.

5.                It is pertinent to note that the complainants/appellants would contend that the screws and the  plate were not properly fixed in the surgery because of which the complainant suffered severe pain in right hip after surgery.

6.                Per contra, the opposite party would contend that the surgery had been performed following standard medical practice and the protocol and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

7.                Admittedly the x-ray was taken on the 3^rd day after surgery and it was found that there was no displacement of the screws and pins or the plate.

8.                One Dr.Vidyasankar has been examined as R.W.2 we have to note that he is a highly qualified expert Orthopaedic Surgeon and we can rely on his expert opinion. He has stated that after the surgery “immediate post-operative x-ray was taken and x-ray showed the fracture has been a comminuted inter trochanteric fracture which has been fixed with a Dynamic Hip Screw Implant. The Technique seems adequate. The fracture has been reduced and the implant position appears satisfactory. Joints surface is well seen. Therefore, there is no penetration”. From his evidence we find that there is nothing wrong in the surgical procedure and the x-ray taken on the 3^rd day disclosed nothing abnormal. It is clearly seen that the complainant did not have any problem till  discharged from the hospital and only later, after getting discharged from the hospital she had the problem of displacement of one of the screws.

9.                Another Orthopaedic Surgeon who has been examined as R.W.2 answered in cross-examination that the complaint was obese and it could be a reason for the dislodging of the implant and when considering the old age and obesity of the complainant there is every possibility of implant dislocation and bending of the screw when she bears weight unknowingly.

10.               As stated above Dr.Vidyasankar R.W.2 is a highly qualified  Orthopaedic Surgeon who is an expert in the field and we can place safe reliance on his evidence. According to him the immediate implant post-operative x-ray revealed that the implant was in proper position and revealed nothing abnormal.

11.               On consideration of the entire materials on record we find no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant/appellant herself is responsible for the displacement of screws due to her negligence in advanced age and obesity.

12.               The District Forum has come to the right conclusion that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and has rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the decision of the District Forum. There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13.              In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIAVATHY,                                                                                     J.JAYARAM,                                                                                                              

Member.                                                                                      Presiding Judicial Member.